and legislation. ther, a discussion on impact of spending cuts on national parks across the country. "washington journal" is next. host: there is a story how the cia is considering drone strikes as part of a candidacy plan and it comes to looking at syria. most papers this morning the with the announcement by secretary chuck hagel on spending $1 billion to add to the anti-missile system. systems would be on the west in alaska and it would be positioned looking at north korea over concerns about north korea possibilities. the next 45 minutes this morning we're going to show you a little bit of what secretary hagel said

yesterday. here is how you can join us this morning. you want to give us a call, 202- 585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. for independents. you can send us a tweet, if you want. 15, so far on our facebook page. far on ournt so facebook page. you is the right up probably heard about. he writes --

a map was provided this morning in "the wall street journal." if you look at where north korea is a potentially what the weapon their abilityls, to launch covers most of the

continent and. if they have the capability of 10,000 commager's it covers most of the united states. with alaska been positioning point for these upgraded augmented missiles. estimated at $1 billion. with that in mind here is how you can weigh in this morning on the decision made by the defense department. for our phone lines it is 202- 585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. -3882 for85 independents.

from facebook -- to hear from the secretary of defense yesterday, he talked about the decision at the defense department yesterday, saying the u.s. was looking ahead. here is a bit of what he had to say. am announcing a series of steps that the united states will take to stay ahead of the challenge posed by in iran and north korea's long- range ballistic capabilities. the nine states have defense

missiles in place to protect us from limited attacks. north korea in particular has made advances recently in its capabilities and is engaged in a serious -- in a series of implications. >> phone lines are available to you. if you would pick the line that best represents you and give us a call. you can also reach out to us on twitter. jrs says -- david joins us from tulsa, oklahoma on the democrats' line. good morning. i was wondering if you could explain a little bit more

to your viewers about korea's access to their own missile defense system, being able to reach us. what is important to know? why is it important to know? caller: could you tell us please north korea is capable of hitting with missiles. host: i showed a map earlier that shows where such missiles could hit if launched. isller: i think that as something everyone should be concerned about. what do you think about $1 billion being spent on this

antimissile system? caller: i think it is worth every penny. host: why so? caller: there is no monetary value that can be placed on the american lives. we already lost so many in the war. we don't need to lose any more. host: some of the write ups in the paper this morning talk about previous tests of the anti-missile systems and concerning about how they perform. off of twitter, jwb adds this -- independent line, hello. caller: powhatan ask if you have any information concerning how china and russia feel about north korea's threat since they are just right over the border line? why should be -- why should we

be the ones spending all this money? i like to defend ourselves. -- it is almost like "here with a two bit dictator telling us what to do. it seems like russia and china would be more interested in defending themselves and i have not heard anything about their reaction to this. host: let me read a little bit from the paper this morning. the paper did say that pentagon officials stressed that the anti defense system is aimed at north korea, not china, which has long had concerns that the u.s. system with a great deterrent effect.

caller: it is not that i am saying are ours pointed at them? they are right next door to them. the sudden like all canada pointed their nuclear weapons at us. i have not seen anything that says russia or north korea are afraid of the people who are running north korea. map, here is the china, here is russia. we will go to memphis, tennessee joining us on our democrats line. are you there? one more time. caller: good morning. thank you so much for taking my call. i am really concerned about

north korea and china. i am concerned about this missile system. --t is really going on with what is our defense mechanism against them? it is an anti defense system position in alaska and california. fired: so if the board missiles to the united states would actually reach the united states? host: it depends on the capability. if you go about 6,000 kilometers, and know. but if you go about 10,000 kilometers, yes. caller: deerfield that we should be concerned about it right now? host: we are asking how you feel about that. caller: i feel that we really should be concerned because are a countryey

concernedry -- i am because of their trend fined missiles right now -- if they are trying to fire missles right now, why shouldn't we be concerned? host: allen on twitter says this -- we go to steve on the republican line. you don't have to be a sixth grader to read the constitution. the responsibility of

the federal government. the federal government is not responsible for all of the nonsense and hyperbole that they spend their time on. in reality north korea is nothing more than a hostage rescue situation. un anduld get kim jong- let him stay at dennis rodman's house. host: what do you think about the decision by the defense department? caller: it is their job, it is what they are supposed to do. they are not supposed to be making greenfield's that are bad for the environment. -- green fields that are bad for the environment. this is what they need to do. this is what their job is, to to protect the american people. host: at the cost of $1 billion. what do you think of that? caller: that is their job.

handing money out to egypt is unconstitutional. we are not supposed to be doing it. why we are, i do not know. host: from kansas on the independent line, you are next. missile defense systems in japan and south korea? we already have them. that does not make sense. decision --bout the what the you think about the specific decision yesterday? their implicating what we already got. i know for a fact we have missile defense systems in the navy surrounding their. what redoing putting it in this country again. host: that was on our

independent line tweet we have about half an hour to talk about this. awful lines are available to you. -- phone lines are available to you. some other stories this morning -- "the baltimore sun has a , right thing -- -- writing --

a related story taking a look at the cia drug strike --

are question this morning turns to city decision -- our question this morning it turns to the decision from the defense department. the defense secretary chuck hagel made this announcement yesterday. we should do a little bit of it. -- we showed you a little bit of it. michigan, democrat line. hello. points ofere are two light to make.

havenited states does not a monopoly on science. whether we like it or not we cannot prevent weapons -- we cannot prevent countries from producing nuclear missiles. for 25 years we were toto with russia and the thing happened. -- we were towed to toe with russia. and nothing happened. we turn that country glass in 15 minutes. host: from twitter, how old is the current system? does it get periodic upgrade or do they wait until crisis like usual? republican line. only the peoplet involved would know what --

there have been some technological enhancements in the last 20 to 30 years in antiballistic system missilmiss. them. worked on the long term thing that we need to look at is how we approach north tweets. -- we approach north korea. it is special interests getting hold policy against north korea. we need to take a confrontational view towards them. into the north korean philosophy that they are

always under attack. you approved -- if you prove north korea's point to its -- le the exit strategy i assume we are going to have their that would be affective is actually to disengage. make the koreans look successful. what i would suggest is having south koreans join with the north koreans in kicking the americans out. we would allow them to do that.

that would be the way to joint he two koreas. "ost: "the wall street journal has a picture of one of the missiles. a side-by-side story talks a little bit about this, saying it -- here is what he had to say if they are affected. there was an issue regarding our gyrus system. as you probably know we are

going to do further tests later this year. we of confidence in our system. we certainly will not go forward with the additional interceptors' until we're sure we have the complete confidence -- the american people should be assured that our interceptors are effective. host: the story in "the wall street journal goes on to say -- of twitter --

ks for holding on. h caller: i am one of those people is one thing i do not care. i think of koreans are run by more radical and more gung-ho guys. i think it is very important that we are protected. if our defense system needs upgrading we need to do that. most of us did not need to know the intelligence gathered. of things heecause has said, thinks he has done a,

things like that that has caused concern for you? intelligence has reason to believe he is very serious. i think they are closer than even five or four years than having a missile. we have to be ready. i know it makes people irritated. we have to have the protection. host: some people talk about concerns over the reliability of the systems. not know the details. this is a statement i heard off of the news media about our testing proving that the systems were not adequate or quick enough. i do not think we are lied to about that.

glad our president and our government is looking at this very seriously. if you want to go to our web site, c-span.org, and go to our video library we have the complete press briefing there. you can look at that on c- span.org. los angeles california, on our democrats lined tweet hello. -- on our democrats line. hello. i worked as a contract manager. one of our early warning systems -- ally

i am concerned about this because we have spent exorbitant amounts of money on systems in thegan with me that early '70s. i was part of the star wars interceptor program that president ronald reagan was pretty adamant about. host: the strategic defence initiative? caller: yes, sir. that flopped. one of the biggest concerns was to get overwhelmed with a the missiles have that they send up and you have expended all of your assets trend shoot them down. the next thing you know is they have the real thing coming in behind it. they haven't solved the problem of identifying what is real and what is not real.

aw do you to term and what is dummy and what is the real missile coming at you? think we have shipped born assets that tweeted probably ship-borne assets that we can probably deploy. it is a real concern. we spent a lot of money. i think they have enough assets in place to defeat anyone that may be a threat to us. borne systemsship-

differ from systems that are located in alaska and california? how are they different as far as reliability? those systems are very limited in number of assets they can actually take out. if you focus on a country such as north korea which seems to be getting a lot of attention take down can really a massive attack with ship-board systems really quickly. we have space-based systems that dropapert a trio -- a trail from a missile been launched. a ground-based system in alaska would have to wait for that miscall -- for that missile to

get up in the atmosphere for it to be detected. .t has to come over the horizon host: that as larry in california joining us. here is the map that was put into the "wall street journal," this morning. it is the 10,000 kilometer perimeter that would affect most of the united states and canada. this and other things leading up to the placement of 14 additional missiles -- anti- ballistic missiles in alaska. the pentagon saying it is looking at other locations as well. from lockport, louisiana

on the republican line. i'm just an average citizen. if we can send all this money to different countries and spend all of this money for their defense was the difference if we spend it on our own defense? if there is nothing wrong with it. if we need to spend 2 billion, it is for our benefit. last caller expressed some concerns and other people expressed some concerns about the reliability of the systems. caller: that is a different story altogether. i am just saying we are spending a lot of money on other countries defenses and the just giving them money. i have children and grandchildren and i am concerned about the future of our country. on our washington dc

independent line, hello. caller: i just wanted to comment on where the money they be -- the money might be coming from. sure it is probably needed. i just want to know if that was something that we are funding. i know it is going to be an issue considering the sequestered and all the financial issues we have right now. ,ost: as far as the price tag the billion dollar price tag? if it is coming from us, what is assumed. the american public is going to have something to say about it if we are doing all this spending. there obviously is going to be necessary if we are to do this

positioning. the american people are going to want to know where the money is coming from. host: if it is coming from us, are you ok with that? caller: i think so. if we need it, then yes. if it is something that we are justpositioning for because then the no. host: that rose from washington d.c.. if you go to "the wall street journal," according to the paper --

the remaining 10 minutes, talking about the decision by the defense department to update the anti-missile system of the cost of $1 billion with a location in alaska over concerns in north korea. democrats line in kentucky. caller: it blows me away how often is the american people are -- how opt tot the american people are to

believe that north korea -- for us to invade them and establish a bse iase in their country, we are trying to intooke china and russia invading our country. slowlyitary is surrounding china and russia with military bases. offjust have to turn mainstream media and people have to look up their own news on the internet. you have to stop believing what all of these pundits are telling

us on tv. that where did you learn and why do you believe it? caller: you just have to look online and look at reporting on the basis that we have established. if you look at a map we are slowly and methodically surrounded china and russia. to russianent publications and learned this for yourself? caller: you can go on our own government website and pull up where we are establishing bases. host: if somebody wanted to learn that, which side would they go? militaryovernment.org, sites. it is common knowledge. kentucky. is otis in mark in ohio, hello.

north: the leader of inherited the he megalomania gene from his father and grandfather. he is by no means a buffoon and he is serious. north korea that is a close ally of the prc. i believe china uses him as a proxy to test us and see how we react to nightmare scenarios. we should financially put a lot koreans.rden on south

we should use them as our proxy as best as we can. ile upgrade,missl i don't know. host: is that an appropriate upgrade? theer: i do not think average american could enter that question intelligently. there are so many layers that we cannot know. $1 billion price tag, does that concern you? caller: it is for the defense of this country, of course it concerns me. for the defense of this country, that is priceless. it is all shrouded in top secrecy. host: its story about the former

representative of new york, anthony wiener, saying he consulted a political firm. he is weighing a return for paul of ticks -- -- a return to politics -- mark, glendale, arizona. hello. isler: real quickly, there an airborne laser on a 747 fuselage. good missile defense

system. relatively inexpensive. aircraft. commercial we could flood the airspace. a 10 foot diameter laser. high energy, low-cost. it is just like the navy's interceptor system. it is the smartest thing to do .o get it on now you have something that is ground based that can actually phase. in the boost it is easier to hit somethign

when it is slower than when it is faster. it is that simple. host: the president paying a visit yesterday to talk about alternative fuel cars.

solomon, the mall for holding on. dayton, ohio on the democrats' line. i agree with the guy before. isillion or two billion, it truth that we spend money on the other countries to help them out with the military. the list goes on and on about what we do. we're talking about our own country and our own sales. i believe we have to do what we need to do. -- tother subject

--lare one war is one thing to declare war is one thing. i do not know what is going on. .t is not a game who knows? we are not in there, we are not looking. you cannot take into account what somebody has when you are not there to see for yourself. the decisionas yesterday, what do you think of that specifically? that whatevereve we need to spend to make that happen, make it happen. about ourking livelihood. there's too much toward god could afford it in the media.

on,nt to much going fighting in the media. one more call on this topic. indiana, republican line. is this donald? caller: i agree with the previous callers. and they should spend whatever it takes for the defense of this country. [indiscernible] i believe they are part of north korea's nuclear program. china is always stealing our technology. i think we should go ahead and find what they need to fund for

this country. donald froms michigan city, indiana. coming up on the program we are the cpachear convention this week. we will talk with al cardenas as we talk about what has come a cpac. later on, bob edgar. he will talk about the campaign money machines ramping up on both sides of the aisle. he will talk about how specifically in new group this to advance the president's agenda. we want to show you a local content vehicle. they have been visiting areas not only to highlight things

c-span2 over the weekend. we focused on alexandria, virginia. at a going to take a look number of topics. five young african american men were arrested as they attempted to get their library cards. want to find ar large group of young men and women who were willing to volunteer to be arrested. it was a fairly large number initially. august 21, 1939, the richest five young men who were available. they got dressed up in their best clothing. , they asked for library cards, were denied, and

tucker had one of the of the brothers of one of these men waiting outside. he came over with a photographer who took the one shot that we have of the policemen and the men coming out of the building. tucker had instructed them to be very polite, very quiet, and it was very sedate. he did not want anyone being arrested for disturbing the peace. the city had to fight attorney at the time. the case went to court. they just wanted to read. tucker had another case that was going on, a case of a retired army sergeant. that is what started this idea. he wanted wilson to be able to get a library card. he was turned down. even though he pay taxes in the city he was not allowed to get a card. there were two cases going on

at the same time. wilson andase for the court case for these five young men. there is no reason to send these young men to jail to serve any time for what they did. it has been said he asked for a continuance for the court case. essentially the charges against the men were dropped. "washington journal, continues. you may have seen one of the speakers at cpac sessions, senator rand paul. on thursday he said the gop has "grown moss covered." gop of all has grown stale and moss covered.

think wehe -- i don't need to name any names. our party is encumbered by an inconsistent approach to freedom. the new gop would need to embrace liberty in both the economic and personal sphere. [applause] have are going to republican party that can win it needs to be the backbone of the gop. host: sees the american conservative union chairman. thank you for joining us. what do you think about the thoughts of old versus new? the theme of our conference is america's future, the next generation of conservatives. thing at this conference, as you see, the new

leaders. a new just turn into generation. just because you are young and a party wants to volume -- wants to follow you does not mean that the timeless principles of ronald reagan are changing. principals are supposed to be timeless. how we present, how we message it, who are leaders are going to become a that is always up for discussion. that is the evolution that we are showing. host: how the work the old with the new? because of a timeless tradition of sticking to principles, we no lesser government and more individual freedom and the values that made our socialist fabric -- our social fabric strong in america -- those things cannot change. onrica should evolve based

its founding principles. having said that, new issues arise all of the time. to those challenges are new. that is not necessarily mean that the cast aside the principles that made our nation strong. >> as far as the challenges, what is chief among those challenges? ,uest: economic challenges foreign policy, -- thes at the forefront of sequestered discussion. it needs to be beaten south if we need to be moving forward. we need to talk about what the next 10 years will look like and how do we start this mounting stop thisw do we mounting debt? on the social front, there are issues we have been covering.

those have been evolving and accepting. immigration is a big part of our conference, comprehensive reform. we have had a lot of discussions on the foreign-policy front and america paused military strength. there is a common denominator that we want aristide to be a strong country. how do we get into other country's affairs? those are tough issues. the conference is to stimulate a lot -- to stimulate intellectual thought. differenth varying point of view can gather and discuss them. untilour guest with us 8:30 to talk about the events this week at cpac.

questionst to ask him about cpac, who is speaking and what it is about, here is your chance to do so. you could send us a tweet @cspanwj. speakers are talking about j it and jeb bush is taking a variety of positions. caller: there is a growing consensus in the conservative movement which she may have not seen a year ago. the rule of law needs to exist,

immigration needs to be fixed. most conservatives come to the realization that this is good for america. we are not only going to try to fix the problems but we are quick to draft new measures to look forward to the future. 90% of folks who come here illegally come here under a lot reprogram for family reunification. we want people to come here at all skill levels. we need to fix that. we need to make the fix some -- make the system workable. conservatives are rightfully skeptic that after ronald reagan's grant of amnesty 25 years ago he was promised by congress that the issues would be fixed. they have not.

the same broken system is in place today. thought. two trains of i think there is a common denominator that those were not documented here are going to see legal status. there is some belief -- there are some who believe they should andranted work permits leases, but not citizenship. many have been here for a while. i believe the senate will likely pass the latter version and the house will probably pass a version that does not have it passed to citizenship. what i have learned and i talk to folks who were implicated in , what they want is they

want a chance to work and come out of the shadows. they want a chance to begin a life and give their children better opportunities. whether you choose the house version or the senate version, i think either version would be fine. is who haser issue been invited and who has not been invited to speak. you invited done on trump and not chris christie. trump and not chris christie. lot ofthere are a foreigners we wish you could have invited. there are so few slots. we have 30 gop governors, 30 ,enators, members of congress

and people folks want to see. u.s. take these hundreds of possibilities and turn it into 30 presentations. -- you have to take these hundreds possibilities and turn it into 30 presentations. say we took not 10,000 applications, we made it to 1000 kids, here is why we did not have the other 9000. i am sure most of these applicants are great kids and students. we only have so many spots to fill. host: why donald trump? guest: we have people there for different reasons. economicad to cover advantages in america. he is a proven millionaire. we thought the american people and conservatives in general needed to hear from him how he disagrees with the administration in the creation

of jobs. we want somebody from the private sector of the entrepreneur side to talk about his perspective. we want a few people from the private sector, not just the public sector, to address the issue of economic stability in america. we want to have different perspectives at the conference. we cannot have the same cookie cutter, here are three spots and hereafter the governors. host: he is with the american conservative union. he is a former republican party chairman in florida. lines, first of is david from new jersey. independent line. hello. caller: a question and comment -- it seems like we are in a while and when the boss unwinnable- in a in

position. seems i bases is not interested in reaching out to people. i know you want to reject latinas especially. it feels impossible. they feel like they can't speak there. exclude minority groups. the leadership wants to reach out to them but the base does not seem interested. how'd you come as something like that? guest: i have great news for you, the sea pak was the most diverse conference we have ever had. many african american speakers. alan west and many

others. speakpanics have come to at cpac > . senator ted cruz close the evening. we have had 71 women speak. it has been the most diverse conference and a group of speakers we have ever had. young highlighting leaders under 40 all over the country. we have a cuban american assembly member from staten island. we have got a lot of young women and minorities who are hiding at this conference for

that very same purpose. at thisre hiding conference for that very same purpose. -- who are highlighting at this conference for that very same purpose. we have had over 10,000 people come to this conference. we have panels and discussions going on at the same time. most rooms are filled all the time. it is hard to fill a room when you are competing with paul ryan or rand paul or marco rubio on the main stage. it happens and we are doing a great job with it host: on twitter they said, unless about-face on an birth control, abortion, immigration and a marriage, they are done. do you agree? have athe republicans

majority in the state levees -- legislative chambers in the country. the republicans did not run a good presidential race. what i do find true in the statement he made is that it is not about issues. it is about performance. ofublicans have lost five the last six presidential elections because we have not adjusted to be changing demographics of our country. it is not a matter of changing who we are or what we stand for. it is a matter of reaching out to all americans, what ronald reagan used to do. the asiannot going to american community, the african- american community -- i am proud to be the first hispanic american charity american conservative union has ever had. is first rule of engagement to engage. i do not think we have done that well. the reason why we are losing ground with the growing

demographics of america is a failure of giving american people and a -- a taste of that. host: what does engaged mean? tost: it means taking cpac the inner-city and discussing why our way of thinking and our way of bringing america forward is in their best interests. we have tried it their way for the last few years. america is going through one of its most difficult economic recessions ever. if you look at our states, the states that were run by folks who have a liberal mind-set, the states who are prospering r- texas, florida. but that communities. prospering,ho are texas and florida.

u.s. census,t the there is a dramatic shift in population of people moving to areas that have lower taxes, less regulation, more freedom. if you want to have the ultimate litmus test as to whether the liberal way or the conservative way it works, look at the census and the movement of the american people. host: next up is reginald from new jersey on the democrats' line. looking at this man and just like the base, is full of hypocrisy. they claim to be religious and they are not. to whom much is given, it is expected. we are dealing with a gritty class of people who are trying to stay in power. people wholass of want to stay in power.

they are great -- races and working against this black president. if your guests be present because of his political objectives, you are not a racist. as a fellow minority, i strongly reject that argument. that is an unfair argument. the president of united states, a black president, for him to get elected talks a lot about america. he was a formidable candidate and he won. republicans are fair minded people. and conservatives believe in fairness and equality for all. i believe in championing success, not calling people who have succeeded by the sweat of their brow greedy. upward mobility has always been our dream. which liberal policies in our country today, far fewer americans are able to reach that upper -- upward mobility than

ever before. we need to be coming together for the same reason that is helping more americans reach an american dream. .his is not an issue of race all of us need to join together to make this a better place. host: this is bill on our republican line. calm i am 65 years old and i was a reagan volunteer and i was a party official. 2000 a delegate to the convention. i am within: a reagan with and it. there are things that bother me. -- i am a reagan conservative. anyone who takes the position of being in favor of drug

legalization -- ronald reagan is turning in his grave. i do not think we can get more people to vote for our candidates if we become more .iberal the idea that we would be in favor of all to marriage -- is so anti-judeo christianity. our party and our movement have not been teaching about these teaching the public and not be conciliatory. compass is been --

still my mentor and ultimately there. still my reagan is mentor and ultimately her. i have read all his speeches and read them often. part of my initial remarks on thursday morning as we opened the conference was about the ronald reagan 1975 speech about colors and contrast and the fact that we lose to we are if we try to be everything to everybody. we beat our loyal opposition by having appropriate contrast. that was his famous pastel colors speech. we believe legalizing drugs is not appropriate. i think it is appropriate to look a what is working in the penal system. we have to been many people going through a revolving door. most of the arrested and in

prison for recreational use. we spend a lot of taxpayers' money in prison only to have recurrence. we need to look at the penal system and how we make people have made mistakes in life more productive members of society. we do not do a good job of that if we legalize drug use. host: what does it mean that senator rob portman came out in support of same-sex marriage in particular because of his personal experience? it it is difficult when you have a loved one close to you who is gay not to favor their points of view. i am a firm believer of every single game right. when it comes to that last box that you check about marriage, i am a traditional catholic. efficent i was a child, a group with the spiritual beliefs of my church, with a ball with great faith. i ever since i was a child,

grew up with the spiritual beliefs of my church, with great faith. it is challenging for me and people who feel like me emphasize my faith to believe in anything other than traditional marriage. that is what we believe in since we grew up. i take exception for those on the left to are promoting gay marriage. have every right to do that and it is a fair issue to debate and they look at us and say we are anti-gay. i love every day -- every game brother and sister and i love everybody else. i believe in traditional marriage. thee we tolerate conversation on the issue -- and the french line for men and chaining, if you are on the left and you are talking to somebody who is traditional marriage, you do not love them the same. i do not see a lot of love coming from the left, or respects when it comes to those who believe in love in our

fellow citizens, including everybody who is gay or lesbian. i did not believe there is as much tolerance on their side in discussing the issue as there is on hours. host: should that be applied politically to your party as far as how it goes forward and how it decides what it wants to do as far as gay marriage? guest: the laws of washington should not supersede the laws of god. we have a right to make a choice and that choice should be made by every state. states have the prerogative to make that decision. i am telling you publicly how i would vote is the issue came up in my state. we have a right to vote on the issue and have the majority of the citizens decide how they feel about what is a personal decision. host: al cardenas is with the

american conservative union and he joins us for another 20 minutes. caller: i have a comment and question. my question is -- and i guess then my comments -- i have been trying to find out when will sarah palin been speaking in the afternoon, in the morning? thanks for asking. i have a special right here. sarah palin will be speaking this morning. i will tell you in one second. she is speaking at 12:00. caller: i am getting ready to call it a night. i did not want to miss her. so she will be going on at 12:00

12:00 p.m.. . -- i am basing this on my involvement with the film industry. the filmics in industry are pretty close. you have one real star in the republican party. it is sarah palin. -- no one hasten come close in 2012 to the numbers she was able to generate from the beginning of her except 38speech where she got million for her acceptance speech. because of that and only because of that, john mccain was able to get 40 million. mccain andput john

joe lieberman on the same ticket, you would have put people to sleep and nobody would have cared. with sarah palin, you got 38 million. with the vice-presidential debate with biden, 60 half and 65 million -- and a half -- and half million people. guest: that is why she is here at 12:00. one of the panel's we are having is the left side and right side we are having is the left side and right side of the brain discussion. most alexa's are won by the heart. are won by the heart. sarah palin is always able to take our principles and translate them an appeal to the heart or the right side of the brain. that is why she is so

successful. the run for public office, you have to submit yourself to the will of the voters. if she decides to run bank -- to will be a viable -- a viablee candidate. she would be a strong can they from day one if she decides to take that step. tennessee on our democratic line. we will be laid off -- to be laid off every year at christmas time. around and they were working illegal aliens. i called the union. these were white unions out of mississippi.

i went to work myself and called the immigration board. they only work from 12:00 until 1:30 p.m. when caught up with them, they did their job. ronald reagan said the american people treat you right. retiremento buy our for $25,000, people have been working 25 or 30 years. this is ludicrous. he said the american people treat you right. now they are 99.9% black. they decide to hire all white. they could not get the mexicans in and said this is a good paying jobs, a union job. this is the kind of jobs ronald reagan does not want. guest: when it comes to jobs,

let me paint the picture for you since we are talking about economics. the world is in now staring well. japan has a declining population and they have been stuck in a stagnant economy over a decade. if you go to europe, the same thing is happening. the native population has a declining population. your financial growth as a country is based on your labor, your consumption and your production. economicallyvive without a population that grows. that is fed by immigration. need help in both stages. we are graduating prelude engineers, mathematicians, scientists who come from india

-- who returned to india and china to apply their trades instead of staying here working for microsoft, ibm and others. we have to provide those folks for an opportunity to work here. if there is no migrant workers, there is the agricultural industry in the united states. is herer labor force undocumented. they do not contribute to our taxes. they do not contribute to our society. it is important to get them out of the shadows and into the mainstream. we would not prosper as a nation without a reasonable immigration policy moving forward, one that fluctuates. the number of people allowed to come to america should be based on the number of opportunities available for them. we should not flood the labor market place or making shrank to the point where we cannot be competitive. immigration is a critical component.

whatever labor policies we have in the future, we should also -- always looked after number one, the united states of america. host: governor romney spoke yesterday at cpac. what is the most valuable lessons from the campaign and governor -- of governor romney that conservative learned about how to appeal to people who? i talked earlier about appealing to the heart and being emotions. governor romney is a brilliant businessman. he talks in logical terms so well. he has to make sure that he appeals to the heart of the american people. he could have done that a little better. he is a decent man. he did not do enough of that. that campaign did not appeal to

a broader segment of america. for the conservative movement to lose the asian american vote three-one is on pardonable. we are talking about well educated -- hard- working, well educated communities. communicating with well educated communities the way we should. the second one is appealing to every american, not just actors of our society. the third one is learning from how well the others did things. they had such advancements in technology as was applied to the election process that they left us behind. that used to be our strength. now it is our weakness. we need to get more competitive in learning how to reach voters in this century. that was the case the first time present obamas rand.

guest: they made a giant leap forward. computer 30 years ago and compare it to your laptop today. they perfected it over a period of time. we never caught up in terms of the technological competitiveness. -- t were changes made host: were changes made? guest: i talk freely to the party chair and he is unveiling the steps we will take to strengthen the party and make it more competitive. i am impressed with what i hear so far. we will see what he has got to say. he is coming to cpac. specifics you want to

share with us? the linesy are along of what i discussed. maybe wilshire specifics about accomplishing these goals. he will share specifics about accomplishing these goals. caller: it seems that every time the democrats are making the point, they say the middle class, the middle class. gettingblicans are not the point across that all the democrats are doing is taxing the middle class and giving it to the poor. they have to get the point across that the democrats are not helping the middle class. they are hurting. the second point is that these liberals get on the phone and they talk and they say everybody is allowed to have their opinion. when it is not in their favor, you are a racist or you are anti-gay or anti this.

guest: i cannot agree with you more. we are doing a horrible job of communicating to the middle class on how they are worse off. all the statistics are worse. every year, the disposable income to the average middle class america has declined 5%. government has grown 30%. the money taken out of your pocket is going to make government bigger. you and your family are struggling to make mortgage payments or buy groceries or allow your kids to go to school. we are not doing a good enough job of impressing on the american middle class that never wantingy been left so than during this administration. as you say, to convey the message you have to be a good messenger. in ohio, tom on the independent line. the reason we have no

middle class anymore is i can see the manson of here and say it is ok to have the chinese come down -- the man sent up here and say it is ok to have the chinese come down here and sit -- work in our factory. this is exactly the reason. this man needs to be taxed 90%. sendingur throats by our stops overseas so he could make billions of dollars. that is why our cities and states are broken, because of these policies. thank you very much. not, we areit or immersed in a global economy. the car as you drive and the airplanes you ride in have parts

made in 10, 15, 20 different countries around the world. for america to be competitive, we have to shift to those areas of greater strength. as our economy gets more complicated and as we cannot compete in cheap labor like some of these emerging countries or third world countries, we have to do what americans do best and that is take advantage of our ingenuity and capabilities. our education system is failing our kids. it is not just about money. we spend more money per student than any other nation in the world. we rate in the lowest quarter when it comes to science, math, things of that nature. we have to get our kids better educated. we have to reform our education system, provide them with some choices. step number two is we need to reform our tax system so that our products can be more

competitive. it cannot be paying 30-40% in taxes in the corporate world and compete in a nation where a company pays zero taxes. you to the equation and find that we are not being competitive. we need to have a tax structure that works. and stopo deregulate over burdening our companies and our entrepreneurs and we need to better educate our kids. a lot needs to be done. you will not be able to get away from the global economy reality. you will not be able to build a fence around america and thinking can prosper. if we do not export our goods, we are in serious trouble. viewere have a cure -- asking for you to tell them about the cpac of reach.

guest: we want all americans to participate as one. we want everyone to have the same opportunity to succeed. we do not guarantee people success. that is not what we believe in. we are a merit-based society. our panel is not how blacks can do this or how hispanics can do that or how transgendered people can do the other or what can we do for them? our goal is to reach out and make them part of our family and have everybody equally enjoy the right in terms of all for mobility. we go out of our way to make sure we incentivize the minorities in our country to participate. we have a long way to go. we would not be in the national election we are in. we are making significant progress. i want to see a good cross-

section of america in the audience. we are making improvements. this year has been a huge gain. we have a way to go. host: part of cpac involves the straw poll. t.ll our viewers about i guest: we do it every year. last year, there was a presidential election. i have heard the skeptics in the peanut gallery saying, it is only a sampling of people. somebody can impact the outcome. i took a national poll as well, a scientific national poll with well-known national polling companies. a 2.5% margin of error. we did the straw poll that we do .t cpac,

it was ronald reagan, newt gingrich, rick santorum. it comes close to how our nation as a whole feels. we will unveil our results at 5:30 p.m. we try to come up with the representative list about who might be in the process. we could not get a list shorter than 23 names. he gentleman talked about sarah palin. we have some great governors. jindal and others. we ended up with 23 potential candidates. that is how many there are in our movement. we will see how the list shrinks. this year has been an extensive list. host: is it true that the only people who won people who went on to the president where ronald reagan and george w. bush? guest: that is true. .aller: good morning the gop is angry at the white

house and they are looking for any way to take advantage. if that means courting the latino vote, they are willing to swallow the bitter pill. they remind me of people who say i am not a racist. i have a good black friend. the republican party fails to understand the pains of the common american. if the gop is to survive in today's political arena, how do you suggest they get in touch with real america and regain their lost trust? advice to all of my conservative friends is to dust off the ronald reagan playbook. ronald reagan insisted on appealing to all americans, spoke to all americans. there was not a single factory worker or blue-collar american the ronald reagan did not want to relate to. there was not a single hispanic in los angeles, in california when he was governor that he did not want to go talk with us

spend time with. you appeal to people by generally liking people. we cannot he lets people who generally do not like everybody. that is a basic ground rules. while reagan said it best. he said, we cannot compromise on our principles. we have got to find people who are electoral and who are articulate in espousing those principles. we have to talk to everybody in this country. we have to make everybody understand that they are part of our family and are safe in our family. there are sectors in our society where we need to improve a lot. i believe people in our side of the sense have been least as good a hard as those on the other. -- side of the fence have at least as good a hard as those on the other. host: a call from virginia on the republican line. hello.

caller: we appreciate you taking our calls. am a christian and a conservative. i listened to your first comment about the gays and homosexuals and things. i do not hate those people. if i hated those people come i would not warn them that they are not going to make it to have been by being this way. they need to the pension change their ways. it rains on everybody. does not just rain on the christians and the homosexuals. they are putting it on the whole country if they make is legal and making everybody agree with it. it is not right. we love these people. i hear a lot of blacks calling in and saying, they just hate black people. i love everybody. they need to rethink and come to god. that is what we are trying to tell them, not that we hate

them. they try to turn it around and if we do not agree with them, we hate them. we do not hate them. guest: the gay rights issue is as divided an issue as we have seen in america. it is a passionate issue. there are strong feelings on both sides of the issue. somehow, someway we have got to survive in america and find solutions that work in america for everybody. the only way you can do it is at the ballot box. that is where we, in a democracy, resolve our differences. i believe you should let the ballot box make those decisions, not a judiciary who should not be imposing their will on the people of the country. who is going to do the keynote?

guest: it is about america's future. the next generation of conservatives. we think he espouses that. host: he had a lot of news come out of the exchange he had with senator feinstein. s wrote about it. part of the impact the tea party continues to have fun congress even though it has proved to be a loser when it comes to elections. if you combine a lack of a sense of humor with an absence of humility, you are not working on college of achievement. guest: when he started campaigning, he was less than 2%. he defeated a popular and well funded opponent in the primary. he ran away with the general election.

people in the home state love them. the conservative movement cares for him very much. we hope more americans get to know him after his keynote speech this evening. there is a lot of tension in that sense, which is different from what it used to be. there are a lot more differences of opinion that we are used to. host: al cardenas is the chairman of the american conservative union. thank you. coming up, we will hear with the president of common cause, bob edgar. and we will hear from the group known as organizing for action. and we will talk about the impact sequestration is having and we'll have on our national parks. we want to tell you about our "newsmakers" program. scalise talked about

budget, spending, tax issues and the keystone pipeline. [video clip] studythe republican committee issued its own competing alternative to the rhine budget. you said before the rise and budget came out this with you would wait to see what the -- before the rise and -- ryan budget came out, he said he would see what the budget committee came out with. >> we will be debating all of that in the days ahead. hopefully, by the end of next week, we will have a budget passed out of the house. i just think anything we do is budget.ning the ryan many of the members of the budget committee are rc members. we want to promote the rc budget.

>> can you describe the key differences between the budget you will be filing and the ryan budget. how soon will the rc budget balanced? >> it balances in 10 years. that was a big push to get a budget that balances in a tin ear window. i did not think it is too much -- a 10 year old and a three year olds. i just think it is too much to ask that we balance the budget by the time they are in the high school. the house working on budget and the rc to save medicare from bankruptcy. we support the premiums, but we are implementing premium support for people aged 59 and younger. i do not think that is a big difference philosophically. at the end of the day, we are saving it from bankruptcy.

president obama does not save it from bankruptcy. obamacare expedites the bankruptcy of medicare. we are doing it differently. we are building upon the foundation that paul ryan set out, that balances for seniors. "> "washington journal continues. host: joining us now is bob edgar, the president and ceo of common cause. what is it? it was founded 43 years ago by john gardner. we have a couple hundred thousand people. a bipartisan organization working on ethics and law reform and trying to hold power accountable. we do a lot on public financing and redistricting.

host: we brought you on to talk about the influence of donors and the white house agenda. there was a new group that was formed, organizing for action. what is this group and why is it important to you? guest: after the election, president obama decided to take all of the apparatus, the database, the e-mails and names and addresses of donors, and put them into an organization called organizing for action. in the "los angeles times and the new york times, they said the president was asking his top donors to bundle $500,000 and if they did that, they would be put on an advisory committee and they would get access four times a year. common cause believes that is the wrong way to go. we want to push back on citizens united. we believe money is important and that money can stifle

speech. we believe the invention of superpacs and the explosion of -- we wanted the president to stand up for reform. the people surrounding the president say he needs this secular organization with high donors getting access to work on immigration and on gun issues. we want mr. president, you to lead on reform. you are the first president not to take a presidential public financing system in 2008 that every other candidate had taken since watergate. i got elected to the united states congress by accident in 1974. i was a chaplain in drexel university in philadelphia. when richard nixon fired rod? -- fired archibald cox after watergate and the country was in

trauma, it was in trouble because of money putting the system. congress put in place a system of public financing so that a president would not have to do what obamas did, which was spent 300 days or 400 days in his last presidential campaign raising money for his reelection, raising $1 billion. to say,the president rather than disarming, i want to lead. we want the president to lead fix theming the system, presidential public financing system, do what he did at the state of the union where he pushed back on the supreme court and said, we should have full disclosure. host: disclosure was the story for organizing for action. that were changes to

stance. can you describe what the organization did? guest: yes. was helpful for some of the government groups to push back on the administration. they just had a meeting this week where, rather than having $500,000 donors, they said they were going to have a scale of donors. i think they were talking $50,000 and less. we still think there is a long way to go. the new york times has already editorialize and said, mr. president, your organization made a baby step back in the right direction. the least they should start over. if the president wants to use this apparatus, use it to build a grass-roots organization. timothy amounts of money given. there are no limits on individual contributions. if i had been in that position,

i would have said to the president, let's put a limit of $100 m less have everybody give contributions. $100 and limit of let's have everybody give contributions. i want to set a legacy for the next president. why should the next president have to spend all that time raising money? ronald reagan did not spend much time raising money. he had lots of donors, but he used the public financing system that was put in place as a reform. host: our guest is bob edgar of common cause. we are talking about the white house agenda. this is a discussion that came from the formation of the group, organizing for action. if you want to call, 202-737- 202-737-0002crats,

202-628-licans and 0205 for independents. there was a dinner on wednesday night. [video clip] sure thewant to make voices of the people put me here continue to be heard, that they are not just heard during election time, that they are not just hurt in terms of dollars that we ares, alping to build or sustain network of citizens who have a voice in the most critical base that will be taking place over the next year and year-and-a- half. -- that is part of the reason i am excited about this and why i am is so grateful all of you are participating.

one of the things i am proudest of given the course of the two campaigns where we raise an awful lot of money is that the people got involved did not ask me for stuff except to be true to my vision and to our agenda. a bunch ofrepresent true believers who got involved and are still here after all the ups and downs of the campaign. edgard. interestingde an speech, but i have to push back on his comments. he said the people gave him the large donations did not ask for anything. they gave -- they asked for access. organizing for action was described as an opportunity for

giving super wealthy donors access to the white house. that is like the selling of the lincoln bedroom without the sheets. usedresident could have that speech in a positive way and said, we did a great job. we won the election. a good portion of our contributions are from small donors. let's make this about average, ordinary people. bill moyers said this is the most dangerous moment in american history for democracy. we are either going to be a nation of, by, and for the people, or of and by the wealthy. corporations were the ones who did not care about their brand identity. the corporations that care about what people think simply have their executives make large contributions. we would like to see us move to a system where there is voluntary public financing,

especially at the presidential level. senator mccain were tired from period to put in place the financing system. president obama should put his arms around senator mccain and talk about how we restore the dignity of democracy. how do we put the principles that in place so that the next president does not have to raise $2 billion on the next democratic candidate has to spend all of the campaign time raising money. mr. romney, when he was running, and he got caught with a tape inside a private setting where people had to give a certain amount of dollars. why shouldn't the candidates have been spending all their time talking to the voters, speaking to issues.

they were spending all their time trying to appeal to wealthy donors. he president said they did not ask for anything. that is hard to believe. the federal communications system is broken. the federal communication commission needs to be reformed. i have to believe a lot of television and radio owners love the facts that every four years, much of the billions of dollars spent on campaigns is plowed into television and radio. host: talk about the framework of organizing for action when it comes to is leadership. its board chairman is jim messina, who had a role in the campaign. you see other connections as well. is that a problem for you? guest: it is not too much of a problem. ok guy.n ok job -- they should have named this

organizing for a perpetual campaign. i do not think they wanted to give this apparatus to the democratic party because it -- led it after the 2000 2080 election. as a superpacit rather than tweeting it as an organization focus on reform and to protect democracy rather than a political arm of the white house. is up first on our democratic line. caller: we have missed the point. the previous election was funded by the republican party

by millionaires and billionaires. i want to drop this load on the most vulnerable. what is happening is that we had an election. what is going on continuously? you are driving the same message over and over again that the president is driving and asking people to give stuff. i am a pc scientists. i am not asking the president ir the would enjoy a ph.d. -- am a ph.d. scientists. . i am not asking the president for anything. guest: let me be clear. i like president obama. he has done some enormously important things. the health care legislation is important. it would have been stronger if we did not have the filibuster.

it would have been stronger if republicans and democrats could have forth together to craft the legislation. friends were republicans and nothing happened because one party putting in place. our concern is trying to get the president's attention on the issue of the optics of this organization he is putting together. we want to do exactly what you are talking about. really to get democracy focused on average, ordinary citizens. because of the 5-4 decision of the supreme court that lifted the lid off of money in politics, we have seen an explosion of money. now that the president has been successful in winning reelection, we want him to be successful in leading deform efforts. we would like to see a white house conference on -- successful in leading reform

efforts. the election process itself is broken and needs to be prepared. people are still standing in lines to vote. let's fix that. i have some crazy ideas that we have had these controversies about registration. i have a four month old grandson. why shouldn't every child born in the united states the register to vote at birth? he already has a social security number. what more do we need? let's give them the same ceremony we give to immigrants -- a flat, a constitution, and a certificate for their first vote. let's get the number of people take up to 90%. all of the screen supporters of the president talking not just about immigration, not just priorities forf energy, but about reform.

he can set the legacy for democracy. here is a question for all of us. where are the founding fathers and mothers of democracy for the next 100 years? how do we get young people to see public service as a part of their lives. how do we encourage them to see that money is not corroding the system and that the person with the most money and the largest check book are the people who get the most access? i will say just this to your question. when i served in congress, money was important. there were limits on how someone could get. there was full disclosure. i got elected at age 31, one year after i loved the word democratic up in the telephone book because of watergate. for the first year, the special interest groups did not come with their checkbooks. they came with their talking points. liberals, conservatives,

independents talked about issues. they went and tried to defeat me time and time again in the district came from. my friends were the ones who corrupted me a file was corrupted. they said, bob, your the first thing -- best thing since sliced bread. they got my picture and put it on the front page of their newsletters. after the election, my friends came back and said, without us he would not have won by 50.0% of the vote. of 10 morelist issues. what happens now of here on capitol hill is on the first day of the legislative session, the democrats have any sense. the republicans have an event. they -- the democrats have an event. the freshmen members to spend 20 hours a week raising money for their election.

all of the special interest groups bring bundles of checks and give those texting karen bass they did not support in the campaign. many of these elected officials are more interested in getting giveheck that in the -- those checks to people they did not support in the campaign. host: markets and the republican line. hello. marcus on the republican line. on campaignhoughts financing is this. the decision came down to justice roberts and his conservative court. i think their thought process

was that this guy could not raise as much money to secure his nomination. their sideooking at of the political spectrum with and soove, dick cheney on. they thought they would maneuver in this way and raised tons of money and leave him in the dust. i really think the playing field has been level. we can all read a little. common cause organization should shift to the gerrymandering of district and go from there in terms of how money is being raised and move forward with more balance. caller, thank

you. this is from james and he talks about citizens united. he says, i love citizens united because he took the ball out of the establishment's hands and put it in the speech for private citizens. of the nine supreme court justices wanted the house and senate to pass full disclosure. in a bipartisan way, the house of full disclosure and the senate did not. vote of 59te a senators who voted to support the closure -- disclosure, but were blocked because of the filibuster. filibuster is unconstitutional. we believe our founding fathers never intended that money would be equated solely with speech.

money gives opportunity for speech. money can also stifle speech. this is the strangest supreme court i have come to know. all of its decisions seem more partisan than we were taught in .lementary school corporations are not people. money is not speech. we should have a system that works. there are two examples i want to share. the first example is on money and politics. take a look at what happened in connecticut. a governor was put in jail. the legislature passed a public financing system where in the 2008 election, the 2010 election, and the 2012 election, 75% of the candidates pledged to take no money from special interests. more than 80% of those candidates won and most

observers say the connecticut legislature, like arizona and maine, that has public financing in place and like many cities like new york and albuquerque, new mexico that have a public financing system in place, they have some of the best legislative days. the lobbyists can still lobby, but they lobby with the talking points and not their checkbooks. citizen united has flooded the system with money. -- citizens united has flooded the system with money. it was a republican president was scared to death of the railroad barons and felt that corporation should not mettle in politics. to the point about redistricting, let me say this. take a look at california. with acause, working coalition of partners over the objections of the democrats and republicans in 2008 and 2010 had

a stake right -- had a statewide referendum. we took away their ability to draw the line. we set up a citizens' commission. 30,000 people applied for 14 positions on this commission. they drew the line. this year, there was more competition in california, not only democrat versus republican, but republicans versus democrats. election, opposed by both democrats and republicans, there were fewer lawsuits against the redistricting plan. he people were represented because the lines were drawn fairly and not by the politicians. in california, which used to be the poster child for how to do redistricting that lay, last november was the first time voters got to pick their legislators rather than

legislators picking their voters. we need to spread that across the country. if you look at the house of representatives today where i served 12 years, it is not representative of nations in terms of its gender and its cultural diversity. it has also been gerrymandered to be on balanced. you can have a real play on words about the house being on balance. the: talking about influence on the white house agenda. we do not what our official pending caller: now, ok. the president has made it clear in my opinion that his vote is for sale. with his what he is doing with his group. i mean, it's obvious. he said it.

and that's inappropriate. and as far as his energy policy, if they would have started the windmills and stuff back in 75 when they were first in congress that would have been great. it would have been cost efficient, it would have set up the parameters where we can use it today. guest: well, he makes a good point. and let me be not too hard on the president except to say this. the president, if he had lost the election and romney were president, all of the senators bodes democratic and republican, house members, democratic and republican, the whole system is tainted. money has croded the system of democracy. and this is a time where we've got to take democracy back and we've got to lessen the impact of money. common cause would love to see a system where if i wanted to run for the house of representatives, i would take no money from any special

interest and i would go out and raise and take let's just use $100. if i raise $100 in my congressional district or in my state let's match it with $400 of public funds. if i raise that $100 in florida or hollywood or in chicago or new york, i can keep the $100 but i can't have it matched what we are trying to do with that concept is make the special interests the district and state and not the lobbyists on k street who are sheling out thousands and thousands of dollars to democrats, republicans, presidential candidates, senate and house candidates. let's find a way in which the special interests continue to lobby with their ideas, their thoughts, their talking points, but not with their money. and it can be a voluntary system if wealthy people wanted

to use their own money, that's fine. janet napolitano who serves here in washington as head of homeland security, she is the only person in the united states to run for governor in arizona on the public financing system that was in place and she said to me one time, it was the first time she had a fund raiser in a poor neighborhood. because in order to qualify she $500 bills 2,000, so she can have average citizens participate to help her qualify. and when her opponent had the president of the united states come in, her public financing money could compete on television and radio. and once elected, she wasn't controlled by the oil interests or the health care interests or any of the special interests.

she could make decisions what was in the best interest of the people of arizona. host: so when you hear ?tatements such as this guest: i'm saying yes, the cat is out of the bag. the lid has been taken off of a can of worms. but i'm impressed -- a few years ago back in the 1950s they invented a vaccine to try to eliminate polio and it was invented by dr. jonas salk. and he came to a group of us in congress and asked are you an optimist or a pessimist? he said, it's too easy to be a pessimist. i wake up every morning saying how can i make the world better? it's a handful of people who change the world. it's a handful of people who are courageous and i believe --

when dr. martin luther king helped to get the voting rights legislation passed the civil rights legislation passed, he had a majority for about 30 seconds. he didn't stand around waiting for a majority. he stood up and spoke out. and he said this. be id, let no one discouraged by the belief that there's nothing that one man or one woman can do. you andly have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and action of bad people but for the appalling silence of good people. i want to see a courageous remnant of good people, democrats, independents, and republicans fix the democracy that we have so that it is in fact run for and by the people. i want to see us have a national redistricting plan that's fair and eekttabble. i have crazy ideas. i want to see every eligible voter voting. i want to see voting come up to

80 and 90%. i don't want to see either party trying to depress the vote. we found one of the conservative portions of our political system telling voters in 08 that republicans vote on tuesday, democrats vote on wednesday. we caught them with robo calls in philadelphia telling people in the african american community, if you have a traffic ticket or haven't paid your child support you will be arrested at the polls. deceptive practices are still at work. let's get democracy right. and money is corroding the opportunity to do that. host: about ten more minutes with our guest. ron, democrat's line. caller: mr. edgar. i agree with everything that you say. i'm very proud that you are already my president. i think you were the president of springfield high, 1961. i'm not sure. but if you turn to your left in

mr. green lee's home room i was the italian kid half asleep. guest: you and i graduated from the same high school. host: caller: that's right. and i never knew what became of you. i knew you were in politics. and i've seen you on this show before and i'm very proud of what you're doing. went on to become successful musician. and the reason why i say that i compare everything to the music business and i think that the tea party, our people that have taken five piano lessons and want to take over the symphony orchestra and i will leave you with that thought. guest: as you know, i was a preacher at age 19 and i was a congressman at age 31 and i was president of a graduate school head of the national council of churches and now i head common cause. and i've lived my life with great illustrations and you have to know that i'll probably steal that one and use it.

i think you're right. when i got elected to congress and was sworn in, i looked around and it scared me a little bit to realize that the people standing there being sworn in were no brighter than i was. we have a system that's made up of average ordinary people oversampleled by lawyers, i'm glad i wasn't a lawyer. but democracy is supposed to be a representative form of government and we want our representatives to represent the constituents that send them there. we want the districts to be fairly drawn. and we want our government to be able to respond to tough issues. as long as money is controlling the outcome of the decisions, if it's being controlled by the energy companies, so that we keep an oil-based economy when we should be moving to at least a large portion of our energy coming from alternative sources, a lot of that has to do with money. and let's not overlook the

defense budget. we have a defense budget that is larger than the combined budgets of 13 of the largest nations on planet earth by a large measure and there's a defense contractor in every congressional district so democrats, republicans, conservatives and liberals all vote blindly for defense. we need a strong practical defense but not one that's based on who can put the most money into the hands of the candidates or into the pockets of super packs and who can put -- provide the strongest lobbyists. we need to ask ourselves how do we get a defense budget that's equivalent and respectful and needed today to address the issues of terrorism but not one that's based on world war 2 thinking. host: new orleans, louisiana. republican line. caller: good morning.

look, i mean no disrespect to you all but you all need to put your thinking caps on and look past the window dressing and realize that this is the dawn of the devil and your son is sitting in the white house. he started ball rolling with his billion dollar campaign and the supreme court responded. i would like to hear your opinion on that and i'll stay on line if you have any questions for me. guest: i think you got your history wrong. the decision of the supreme court came after the president was elected and not before. and it was not based on what obama was doing in terms of raising money. i don't see obama as a devil any more than i see former governor romney as a devil or any of the other candidates that have been running. i think we have a democracy that's pretty good. in fact, we can change presidents without a shot being

fired. we have a really good system. but that system is in jeopardy because of the amount of money that's plugged into the system. and that's why we want this president to lead on the issues of reform. but i wouldn't go where you're going to think about the president as a devil. the president is an honorable person surrounded by individuals who i think are giving him bad advice on the optics of how you organize across the country a grass roolts operation that supports his policies but also is pushing the ideas of reforms that are needed for whoever gets elected next. we've got to address global warming. we've got to end the poverty that kills. we've got to work on finding ways to live as brothers and sisters on a very fragile planet earth. and we're not going to do that very well. again, when i served in

congress my best friends were republicans. we talked all the time. we went to dinner together. and once elected we thought we were there to serve the public interest, not the special interests. i want to see us get back to that kind of passion, because there's an urgency to addressing the issues we face. host: so robert adds this. caller: good morning. i believe like you do that you have to keep fighting, but i also believe that you have to be realistic. and all these things you're naming have happened over a period of time like 200 plus years. and it's unfortunate because i'm retired law enforcement from california and i remember the rules being very strict, very clear. and i almost got fired early in my career for taking what was considered a grattute. so i know what that feels like.

and yet we have a system that is so corrupt. and i really just believe that we've waited too long to try to fix things even though i still keep fighting for it. i just believe that one of these days we're going to implode. and it's just the way it was supposed to be. sometimes you have to accept that you're going to lose. and that's what i have to say. thank you. guest: there's an expression that rattles around in my head that simply goes in a dark time the eye begins to see. i think this is a dark time for democracy because of money. but i don't think it's so dark that it can't be reversed or changed. it was a politician who went to south africa in 1966 was startled by what he saw in terms apartheid. and he could have been very cynical but he said let no one be discombrirged the belief that there's nothing that one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ill. few will have the greatness to

bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events so that in the total of all those acts will be written the history of our generation. i think the young people and the young adults to think about a season of their life in public service. i want each of us to wake up every morning and say, what can we do to make our communities better, our states better, our nation better, our world better? and i appreciate the opportunity as head of an organization founded by john gardner working on ethics and lobbying reform and redistricting. and trying to get get money out of politics to do the best we can to improve the quality of life in the nation and to improve the quality of our democracy. i'm not overwhelmed by the challenges. i simply want to inspire a courageous remnant of people in all political parties to care

about justice, to care about reform, and to let's see if we can't find a way to work together. host: one more call. arkansas, democrat's line. caller: i'm a mayor of a small hamlet here. and -- host: guest: you have the toughest job of all. when i used to serve in congress, local officials are my heroes because being a mayor or local official, you're aware of where the rubber hits the road. caller: well, people ask me about it and i always say, you're in a position to do a lot of good if you'll do it. because people come to you when they need help. and i try my best to help them. and if i can't help them, i try to point them in the right direction. but i will tell you what -- now, i don't know what i'm expected to say here but i lived through the great depression, and also through world war ii.

and i don't need to be talked to about what parties have done or that type of thing. but i saw what franklin roosevelt did to pull us out of the great depression and he did so many public things. people couldn't even buy shoes for their children. and d up relief agencies some of them marginal but they worked and his opponents tried to kill them all and did eventually. but he pulled us through all that . host: so your question or comment to our guest? caller: to finish up. goodness. host: we'll leave it there. guest: let me respond. i have an 88-year-old mother who just found a 77-year-old boyfriend. so we have to recognize that persons like you and other whose live thrud depression have seen the changes made.

and franklin roosevelt was one of my heroes and he was a challenge just like obama's been challenged about obama care and it turned out that any of the critics love social security and love medicare, love a whole bunch of the programs that were put in place. i think in my closing i just want to say, i want us to get to a point where elected officials, once elected, serve the public's good. and i want them to serve that good and represent their people without having to be tainted by how much money they can raise. when i ran for congress, i had a total of $400 in the bank. i was making an $11,000 salary. when i got to washington, the congressional salary at that time was $44,000. i thought that was more money than i would ever imagine seeing. it seems to me we've got to get

to the point where average ordinary people give a season of their life to public service, have an opportunity to step forward, run for public office, and arnt overwhelmed simply because the coke broth whorse have billions of dollars -- dollars of money can buy their way into elections. and finally this final point. there was a myth that occurred after the election that the super billionaires karl rove groups and the super packs didn't win. i have to say i think that's false. what happened is because of citizens united, because of taking the lid off money plowed into the system, the people who won even though you think who were the good people who won, they had to raise a lot of money. they spent most of their time raising money. we've got to get lowering that. why shouldn't we give free time on television?

why should 80% of the billions of dollars be spent on television and radio negative ads? why not open up the air waves? they belong to america. common cause has a new media in democracy project where we're trying to take back some of that time for the public's good. host: i'm afraid some of our time has run out of on this. thanks for your time. guest: good to be with you. host: coming up next, john gardner. here to talk about the effect of sequestration, particularly upon national parks. what it does and what it will do as it goes on. and your ability even go go to -- to go to national parks. we'll be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2012]

>> this story started in 1860

when congress finally acted after many decades of difficulty, they created an entity to do their printing for them. and so congress' printer became the government printing office. the short turn around of important documents can be sort of routine occurrence for the way this place works. this document from april of 1974 is the famous transcripts of the white house tapes from the nixon administration that were the investigation of the watergate. burglary. this document was brought over very late in the day and the entire transcript had to be prepared for the press and printed overnight, and the first 50 copies went up to the

white house very early the following morning and then the several thousand copies for the congress went somewhat later in the day. this i think is the origin of deleted. expletive host: for our final segment, john is joininging us, the budget and provept appropriations legislative director. tell us about the association. guest: we are a public interest group. we work on a bipartisan basis. we have 750,000 members and supporters across the country, people who care deeply about our national parks.

we've been around since 1918, a couple years after the national park service. the idea is to have a public interest advocacy group. host: are you late to the park service or a separate entity? guest: a separate entity host: talk about sequestration. guest: a buy product of the process. we're deeply concerned that this is the biggest threat we've seen to the park system as a whole in quite some time. what's really a 9% reduction for the budgets of superintendents running our parks is going to mean some really difficult decisions coming on top of years of underfunding so they've been cupting corn ers. host: as far as staffing is concerned? guest: they've already not been filling staff positions that have been vacant. we're looking at 1,000 seasonal staff and 900 permnanlt staff who will not be out there in our parks this year as a result of these cuts. host: i'm told about 2.86

billion, about 15,000 permanent staff sners guest: that's right. so we're talking about 900 out of them so that's going to have an impact on both resource and serving visitors. host: some say you already have employees can't you shuffle them? guest: they have already been understaffed so if you talk to arks they have they've already been doing more with less. so this is going to have an additional impact on top of that which is why we're going to see damaging impacts, some challenges and thing that is visitors are going to start to see. host: why so many staff? guest: well, for wung thing there are 398 national park systems across the country so some of the largest like yosemite to smaller parks like the birthplace of the president

in southern indiana. so there are a lot of park system units. and there are also a lot of staff who are both caring for the resource that is make these places so special to so many americans and also just ensuring that visitors can have a safe time and providing the interpretation that really makes the parks experience so special for so many people. host: and how they're affected by sequestration is our topic. if you have a call here's how you can do so. on the screen are the numbers. ou can send us tweets, e-mail, because of sequestration, is it a result because of what the cuts that are going on are we going to see parks actually close or is it just limitation of people's access to the park

we're talking about? guest: for the near term limitations of people's access to areas of parks. closed campgrounds, closed visitor centers, reduced hours, and other park facilities and centers. pick nick grounds that aren't going to be open but also delays of opening certain roads in some of the western parks where there's snow that they have to plow they're going to be doing some delayed openings there so there will be some reduced access there. we're very concerned about what that means for the many business that is rely on those visitors. host: if you go to the npca.org website there's a map available that's affected when it comes to sequestration cuts. it's interactive. talk a little bit east coast-west coast. what's the number one concern? which park gets hit the most? guest: great question. from the documents we've seen every park in the system is going to be impacted.

what is really a 9% cut to the budget for the rest of the year is going to be across the board, across every park. so we're going to be seeing things like the delay of a month of the visitor's center at acadia national park out west in yosemite one of the most iconic parks that people know well, the delay of plowing some of those roads. that's going to mean inaccessibility for some of those campgrounds there. also reductions in ranger levels who provide education on bears and bear management, maintaining campgrounds, law enforcement impacts as well. here in the east great smoky mountains, we're seeing the reduction of ten permanent staff, six seasonal staff. that's across the board. so really, deep impacts across the country. and great smoky mountain is a great example. this is the most visited national park in the country. we have almost 10 million

people last year, spending more than $800 million. that's creating almost 12,000 jobs in surrounding communities. so we're concerned about what the impact there is. guest: great question. and we really encourage americans young and old to go out and volume tir. it's a wonderful experience and very helpful for those national park service staff who are stretched so thinly. but those -- that's not going to make up the difference with the cut of this magnitude, unfortunately. we wish it could. and also, those volunteers need some staff to help ensure that they're having a safe experience, that they are being well managed. and so there's some staff needs for just having those volunteers out there. host: the numbers will be on your screen as we chat about the parks. if you want to call in with your question or comment. david, independent line. hello. caller: i used to work at the

stones river national battlefield here. it's about 800 acres as a seasonal employee while i was in college. i can tell you from what i saw there anyway, this place was -- had plenty of staff. there were six, seven rangers or full time employees with badges, the seasonal employees, a couple of maintenance people that were full time. i was one of the maintenance guys. you go through the office and these guys are sitting around typing the same paper over and over again five or six times. they had nothing to do. and i don't know about the entire system but i would say parts of it, you know, they're overstaffed. they have room to make adjustments to staffing, to appropriate areas. so that they can fix this problem. having said that, i understand the need to give people jobs, things like that. you don't want to cut things too close. but i think this is just a

lashing out at the middle class by the president to get the budget he wants. i understand he wants this budget and i agree to great extent but this spt the way to go about doing this. guest: well, thanks for staffing our national parks and i hope that was a great experience for you. we have been doing some research over the years and have found that there's an annual shortfall in the resource that is parks need of as much as more than $500 million per year. so across the country there have been issues with understaffing. i can't speak to this particular example that certainly unusual. i haven't heard a story like that i'm not sure when that was, but in general we are looking at some understaffing and this is just going to be much more difficult over this coming fiscal year and possibly beyond if this situation isn't ig yurd out.

guest: we're talking about a third of the top 25 domestic travel locations that are national park units. more than $30 billion per year in spending that's generated. that's equivalent to the revenue of some of the largest fortune 500 companies, a quarter million jobs supported as a result. host: because of fees or other things involved? guest: this is when folks are going out to visit, eating in restaurants, staying in hotels, buying s.u.v. nirs. all of these have impacts creating 13 million jobs around the parks themselves and then as a result of that spending additional jobs around the country. host: is there a cost? guest: there's a fee for entering and for staying in some facilities, not for all. it's a nominal fee so it depends on which park you're going to. host: democrat's line. good morning.

i would just like to know what type of effect would it have on wild live? would that cause wild life to just run wild? how would they keep everything in captain tivity safe if nothing happens? host: guest: we are very concerned what this could mean for the long term protection of our parks not just wild life but the plant life as well as well as historic resourcings, for example the wolf management program what is that going to mean for those and the management. we're very concerned there. another example, not wild life but in terms of plants, invasive species in josety. there's going to be reduction in staff who are curbing those invasive species. so we're definitely concerned. host: wayne, independent line.

caller: i'd like to know how much a year increase in the budgets are. guest: we've been seeing reductions for the park service the last couple of years of 6% cult over the last two years. that's prior to sequestration, which as i mentioned is an additional really 9% cut to park budgets from there. if you look in terms of the last decade prior to sequestration, 15% reduction in the park service budget in terms of in today's dollars when you control for inflation. host: i read somewhere that when it comes to the national parks there's $12 billion in neglected maintenance. guest: that's their deferred maintenance backlog and that has been growing, trails that are suffering not being maintained the way they should as a result of insufficient staff and dollars the construction budget for the park service has been reduced significantly over the last decade by about two thirds. so there's an impact from that cut. we're looking at things like maintaining waste water

systems, maintaining routes and all of that has an impact on resources and on the visitor experience as well, maintaining trails and bathrooms all of that is wrapped up in this $12 billion. and about $3 billion of that is the really critical needs in terms of what has to goat done to protect resource -- get done to protect resources. we're concerned that is on a downward trajectory. host: is it having more staff and money or doing better with what you have? guest: there's both. and the park service has been looking at spending their money wisely and making internal decisions to do that. they've been consolidating it services, reducing their travel budgets and looking to see where they can have some savings and spend their money more wisely. because they have seen this coming. they've been dealing with reduced budgets. so it really, i hate to say, is a matter of just providing some additional resource soss they can deal with those needs.

host: ann from massachusetts. democrat's line. good morning. caller: good morning. the reason i'm calling is i've been listening in and i hear a lot of people pitting the blame on the president and i don't really understand it. it's misplaced. he is trying to avoid this whole situation. he has been trying to work with the republicans since the start of his presidency and he has gotten nowhere with them. basically we look like fools to the entire world. and if we can't even maintain r own government and provide simple basic services to our untry and you talk about employment, you know, all these parks drum up more business for -- this is the entire country. there are parks in the entire country. this is going to have an effect on all of the united states. and i just -- it sickens me that they are playing this game. guest: thank you for those

comments. we share your dismay. we're really disappointed that both parties can't come to the table and find some meaningful compromise on a larger deal, a grand bargain that's going to prevent these constant cuts to discretionary spending that's having the impacts we're talking about. so we share your concern and encourage people to call their members of congress, express their concern and what theets cuts are going to meeze and ask them to find some compromise. host: this is clinton. guest: there was not ain crease, a cut of 6% over the last couple of years. and so this cut really 89% is on top of that -- 9% is on top of that. so that's part of why the impacts are going to be so damaging here, especially in the long term if these lower budgets are maintained. host: hollywood, florida. good morning. republican line.

caller: i think the president is just playing games with us. i think that he can move the money around and open the parks to the american people. he is just playing games with us. and this is a way to hurt the people. guest: thank you. this is something we've heard because people think well this cut isn't that large but surely it can be absorbed by our national parks. there's really a few reasons why this is so damaging much of it is really out of the control the park service. the way sequestration is designed, it is really punitive by design. it is across the park service accounts. so they're really forced to absorb some sizeable cuts here and that's across all discretionary agencies. so there's not the discretion there to make very good decisions. it's really a hobson's choice for superintendents who have to make choices between plowing

the roads or not hiring as many seasonal staff. so they have some very difficult decisions to make as a result sequestration is designed and the way their budgets are designed. ost: this is from twitter. guest: unfortunately, there will be impacts at yosemite that we're concerned about. reductions in ranger levels, impacts to visitors centers and campgrounds. and these are really one out of every five international visitors who are groing to our national parks. the -- the scots recently increased the budget for their national parks out of concern to bring more turetses there. so it's ironic to us kind of cutting off the nose to spite the face that this resource that would be so compelling to so many international visitors would be a place that is really falling through the cracks. guest: host: who is the biggest

proponent or at least on capitol hill republican and democrat who are with you on this? guest: well, there are really a lot of members of congress on both sides of the aisle who support our national parks and who are very concerned about this. there's a national parks caucus that is chaired on a bipartisan fashion by congressman reichert congressman kind in wisconsin. senator mark you'd al in the senate has been a big champion, senator alexander in tennessee. senator portman. many senators and congressmen out there who care opt on both sides of the aisle because they are loved by both republicans and democrats. host: again, our guest is with our national parks conservation association. he works on budget and appropriation issues. he is our legislative representative. john gardner is his name. d if you want to ask him questions about sequestration, the effect on the national parks the numbers are on your creen.

who overcease the national parks as far as their budget? guest: the national park system is a federal agency. managed by the department of interior. it is overseen by the nagal parks are overseen by national park service but really belong to the american people in trust they're really being managed by our generation as stewards for the next generation. host: does it have some type of inspector general that oversees issues of spending and that kind of thing? guest: there's a comptroller for the park service that looks over their budget. there is an inspector general in the interior department that would look into a budgetary concerns if there were some there as well. host: as we go into the spring and summer what happens in terms of potential wildfires and thing likes that? how is that covered?

guest: the fire budgets are a concern. i suppose i need to look into that issue more. i know that appropriators are struggling with maintaining and ght ing some money to fi fires in parks and as the bills are being written that is a concern so there aren't damages there to people's homes, to wild life habitat. so it's certainly something we're concerned about and that we'll be looking into more. guest: host: do states have a role in this and can they compensate as well considering that the parks reside in states individually? guest: states are very concerned for what this means. in wyoming what we're seing in terms of delayed openings to yellow stone national park, state is very concerned. host: can they compensate? guest: the problem is state budgets of course have been having their own hard time so there may be ways that they may be able to help out in some

situations we may start seeing that but there are limitations to their own resource there is. so i guess as this goes on over time, and as more visitors start coming to our national parks we'll see how that plays out. host: democrat's line. caller: my question is, we're going to have working together ith democrats and republicans, and i'm 77 years old i don't see why either side doesn't ive a little bit as opposed to all. the other side is the 9% reduction is not in their pay. it's in the next year's budget. the this the reason it's squeaky wheel syndrome that normally runs washington or are we going to stop talk and start

doing something about our problems? and how about the 9% of food that go to people that can't afford to buy food? guest: really great question. there of course are cuts not just to the park service but across discretionary spending, which is really only a small portion of the federal budget and that's where all the cuts have been. so we are among a lot of groups that are concerned about what this means for national parks and a lot of other places and programs that people care a lot about. so we share your concern. this is really a failure of government that the budget process has gotten so broken and we're urging decision makers on both sides of the aisle to come together and compromise on the meaningful thing that is are going to reduce the deficits and take care of this problem so there isn't this continuing downward spiral so thing likes national parks are falling through the cracks with impact on people's businesses and livelihood.

guest: i would disagree that they are a luxury and the polling that we have done would concur with that. we commissioned two polling firms respected democrat and republican polling firms that determine that 95% of likely american voters support national parks as a federal entity. these are places that are deeply popular with the american public. that of course are very economically important to a lot of communities. and so really, a great investment for every dollar invested in the national park system, $10 in economic return. you would have to look far and wide to find such a great investment. host: d.n.a. from indiana. republican line -- dan from indiana. hello. caller: thank you for the opportunity to speak out. i just wanted to comment on the national parks. as far as the budget goes, i have personally been to egypt and spoken to some of the people over there.

they like our company, they don't like to be told how to run their country. we've got billions of dollars going over to egypt. but we can't support our own national parks. the part that really irritates me about that is my whole family are in camping and we use the parks yearly. earlier in the conversation, there was a comment about more volunteers. why do we need volunteers if we're sending billions of dollars to countries that don't like us and we're putting our own people out of work? these people don't need to be volunteers. they need to be paid employees. and paying out of the taxes that we give them. the people are wonderful in the state parks. they're very kind, they're very helpful. and that's where we try to support as much. we enjoy the camping.

it's a family outing. host: how many times do you go a year? caller: well, not as much as i want, but the camper that -- two camp eshes that i purchased for my children. and their families, there's no chance of me getting those. they're booked clear into august. and they go almost every weekend. we're here in indiana. they use a lot of the state parks. the independent parks, they don't have the staff, they don't have the upbringing. the state parks, they're well maintained. i don't know how they do it with the smaller staffs that they do have. everybody works 120% and i just think that more money should be fund tot people and the projects in our own country and less given away as bribes or whatever you want to call it to other countries. host: we'll let our guest respond. guest: i'm so pleased that

you're getting out and doing some camping with your fam lifment such a wonderful activity that inenjoy and i share your view. i don't do it enough myself. i can't speak to your concerns about foreign aid but certainly appreciate your concerns about the national park service budget and would really encourage you to call your members of congress and to share your views and your frustration with them. and encourage them to figure this situation out so that our national parks and the funding that they deserve. ost: charles, democrat's line. caller: question. i'm a retired brick layer. i worked brick lage for 40 years. the number one thing when the economy went down is our companies had to reduce staff. and that's employees. why can't the federal government do a little bit of research and do what the private sector does and reduce

staff? i live here in salsbury. there's 20 federal workers on that. why. there's nothing to do. look at the horses. and we've always gotten along. i worked 40 years. didn't miss any time. guest: thank you for that. i will say that of course as we've been discussing the park service has been dealing with some challenging budget situations including really being understaffed at a lot of national parks. that's part of the problem is this idea of across the board cuts to discretionary spending. it's kind of a mindless process and not the way budget making is supposed to be. and in a normal appropriations year, the decision makers have the discretion to put money where it's a good investment for things like national parks. the problem is because of

across the board spending we have a process that's very broken. host: jerry on our republican line. caller: i just have a question. i maybe i tuned in a little late. what is the budget now and what is the budget going forward? is it a cut in growth? or is it a cut in the actual spending of what it currently is? is it going backwards or -- in spending or are we just not going forward as much in spending? guest: i appreciate the opportunity to clarify that. it's really a cut in current spending. we've seen a reduction of 6% over the last 2 years. now 9% to park budgets on top of that. more than $130 million. we are definitely looking at a downward trajectory here and that will remain the case until this situation is really figured out. it's going to be very challenging. host: ten more minutes with our guest to talk about the effects

of sequestration. john gardner of the national parks conservation. michael from palm beach gardens, florida. caller: the president indicated that these are going to be painful cuts when in fact we give billions of dollars to foreign aid. i heard someone speak of that earlier. if we would have stopped giving money to the foreign countries. over 150 countries. billions and billions of dollars. also, we have the department of education which over the last year over $48 billion went for the department of education. what do we need a federal department of education where originally in the late 70s there was one office space with 70 employees we now have three federal buildings with over 70,000 employees. every state has a department of education. e don't need it. host: the national park service

if you have another question. caller: i'm saying they ought to slash the spending the frivolous spending and support the department of of national parks. that's my point. cut the spending where it's unnecessary. every state has a department of education. host: ok. thanks. guest: appreciate your concern about funding for national parks. i can't comment on the funding of some of these other agencies of course but again we appreciate your concern and want to see this situation resolved. host: california, democrat's line. good morning. caller: good morning. i live here in crescent city and our number one income to our city is parks and recreation. we have the biggest prettiest red woods in the world. we depend on the tourism that comes in. we have already made cuts in some of our tourism into our parks and recreations.

if we don't have the tourism, our town dies. a lot of our tourism also is with our museum. we take care of battery point lighthouse. if we don't get the tourism in to our city, we lose our city. we talk about republicans and the democrats in the house and the senate and making budget cuts. why don't we cut their pay so they can get off their rear ends and be able to come up with some type of a budget cut? because we need to save our town. host: so tell me about the park that's close to you again. caller: jed smith. host: national park? guest: we have a lot of -- caller: we have a lot of parks here in town. it's a national park. we depend on the tourism. and we've already seen a lot of tourism just in the last year from last year because roads

being closed, trails being cut down and closed. host: what kind of businesss support tourism around the park? caller: food, restaurants. museums. we have fishing that is big here that the tsunami took out recently that is being rebuilt. so that hurts us there. guest: so sorry to hear your story and the impacts to your business and the businesses of the people in your community. we're really concerned about that. there are a lot of people living you of course. there are hundreds of businesses that make their living off of national parks and similar situations recently wrote a letter to congress and the president to express their concerns. really, an unfortunate example of how these cuts are really penny wise and pound foolish when you consider just how much money they're generating for local communities. and really we're talking about

1-15th of the federal budget here. host: caller from arizona. good morning. aller: start with my question. do you believe that the states could operate the national parks as well or maybe even better than the federal government? and second, and my comment is is in my young years i was a stamp collector and i had the complete collection of the national parks series. i think there was about 12 stamps in that collection. it was authorize by fdr. and there was something strange about that. d that as many people know

the stamps are printed in large sheets, not just -- these were commemorative stamps. so 50 stamps to a normal sheet there was four times that. and so it was a big sheet. and i was fortunate enough in my young years to have that .ollection complete host: i don't know if our guest can address that. what's your question please? caller: the question is, the national parks including the grand canyon, be operated as well or better by the states? guest: i appreciate your question. no. we feel very strongly that it is appropriate for the federal government to be managing our national parks. they're really national parks. that was the whole concept in 1916 when they created the park system and we're really happy

that americans agree with us as i mentioned in the bipartisan polling we commissioned 95% of likely american voters feel the same that this is an appropriate role for the federal government. host: we have one more call from maryland. caller: good morning. i would just like to say that during the george w. bush administration president bush himself used to talk about this idea of putting our public lands to work, which to me was kind of a code word for 3r50eu69izing the national parks for things like, i don't know, mineral mining, mountain top removal that sort of thing. and what i see happening here is exactly that. by sec stering the national parks, i think it's kind of an insidious way of doing exactly that, putting these public lands which belong to the people -- they don't belong to corporations, they don't belong to businesses. they belong to the people of this country. and i see that happening here with this idea of sequestration. i think it's very dangerous. and secondly i would like to

say with regards to politicians on both sidse of the aisle this idea of cutting during bad times, every single one of these politicians who talks about how we can cut our way to prosperity would fail basic economics 101 you cut during good times. you save during -- you cut host: we get the point, caller. thank you. guest: thank you for your comments. and again, really, share your view that national parks are really important for local economies and would just encourage callers who have frustrations to call their members of congress, encourage them to figure this situation out where national parks aren't falling through the cracks. and you can hear more from us. ost: john gardner, npca.org. joining us to talk about the effects of sequestration. thank you. guest: thank you very much for having me. host: we go live to our coverage of cpac not too far

here from washington, d.c. right now the crowd is hearing from minnesota republican congresswoman michelle bachmann. >> you can never count on your cat. ok? that's a given. but i want to know what's absolute confidence who it is that does care about you. it is this movement, this representative in this room all across the country. it's a movement that fundamentally cares so deeply and so personally about protecting innocent human life, about great institutions like the family, about a growing economy, about ensuring that we have a strong national defense. we care about these things so much because fundamentally we are the people who truly care about people. we love people in this country. and we want everyone to succeed in this country.

because, you see, we want everyone to have the best possible life that they could have. white, black, hispanic, young immigrants, old immigrants, male, female. you neam it, -- name it. we want everyone to succeed because we need everyone to succeed in this country. that's our community. because when you get lifted up in our community, then we get lifted up, too. that's how it works about and that's why we care about you. and that's why we want to make sure that gasoline costs $2 a gallon rather than $4 a gallon. and we can make that a reality if we try. and that's why we care that your sister and your mother have her second amendment rights so that she has the ability to protect herself against a harmful assailant. it